Protestants: What weight do you give to the "Apocrypha"?

[MarcoPolo]

I have both The Douay and KJV and one is only 67 and the other 74 books, meaning the is KJV the old version is short by 7 books.

I’m not sure what you are asking Abe, but one comment on the above. The original King James version of 1611 included all 7 of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books in an appendix.

The reason I cited that bit of information in the original post was to see if today’s Protestants still put the same usefulness on these books as the first Protestants (as well as see how many people Protestant and Catholic alike even knew that!). And we have seen some variance in answer, but good information to learn all the same.

 

[lak611]

I’m not sure what you are asking Abe, but one comment on the above. The original King James version of 1611 included all 7 of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books in an appendix.

I have a reprint of the original 1611 KJV. I also have a KJV published by Cambridge University Press that is printed in England; it includes the Apocrypha. Both of these Bibles place the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Zooey]

I believe without question, that the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are inspired Scripture, and I read & study them as such.
I will say, though, that I tend to spend more time in the New Testament than the old, so that it is a little hard for me to assess “weight” to these books. I mean, I certainly think that there is a whole lot more for the reader in Wisdom, for example, than there is in Numbers. (Which I just finally finished again…I keep telling myslef that I am old enough to decide to just skip Numbers, but I haven’t done it yet…)

 

[mozart-250]

I freely admit that I use the 66 book Bible not because I studied the issue a whole lot, but because the first church I attended after becoming Christian was a ‘P’ church. Therefore it used the 66 book Bible and that reasonably became the Bible I started using.

Had it been a ‘C’ church, I am sure I would use a 73 book Bible.

Furthermore, every debate I have ever read one this gets into historical detail that I do not understand and have absolutely no way of verifying.

The one thing that I have decided is the metric that should be used here (at least the metric that works for me). I think it best to use the same OT that Jesus used. After all, Jesus did not complain about His OT being short books or containing extra books.

Besides this is a metric that I at least can understand even if I can not verify it.

Now I am told that Jesus used the same OT as the 66 book Bible, but I am not sure that it is a settled fact. If I can be convinced that Jesus used the same OT that the 73 book Bible (or the 81 book Bible) uses, I will gladly switch to get in line with what our Lord used.

 

[mozart-250]

I freely admit that I use the 66 book Bible not because I studied the issue a whole lot, but because the first church I attended after becoming Christian was a ‘P’ church. Therefore it used the 66 book Bible.

Had it been a ‘C’ church, I would use a 73 book Bible.

Furthermore, every debate I have ever read one this gets into historical detail that I have absolutely no way of verifying. So what do I do except keep using the same Bible I have always used.

The one thing that I have decided is the metric that should be used here. I think it best to use the OT that Jesus used. After all, Jesus did not complain about His OT being short books or containing extra books.

Furthermore, this is a metric that a simpleton like me can understand, even if I can not verify it.

Now I am told that Jesus used the same OT as the 66 book Bible, but I am not sure that it is a settled fact. If I can be convinced that Jesus used the same OT that the 73 book Bible (or the 81 book Bible) uses, I will gladly switch to get in line with what our Lord used.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Now I am told that Jesus used the same OT as the 66 book Bible, but I am not sure that it is a settled fact. If I can be convinced that Jesus used the same OT that the 73 book Bible (or the 81 book Bible) uses, I will gladly switch to get in line with what our Lord used.

Why would you be convinced that Jesus used the 66 book Bible? He certainly didn’t quote from all of them.

If you would like to be “convinced” and want to take the time, I recommend Gary Michuta’s book which just came out in 2007, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

Just the early Church plethora of citations from all 73 books as “Scripture” or “as it is written” should be enough to at least tell you that the 66 are incomplete. Just look for all the citations of the “7” books from Christians between the years 33 and 1500 AD. Just my tip!

 

[Lev23]

I have 2 problems with the book of Maccabees 1 and 2.

#1. In 1 Macc 9:27, it states-
There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.

It is clear God was not talking to Israel through the prophets at that time. And like was mentioned earlier in this thread, Jesus stressed the important sciptures that spoke of him-
**Luke 24:25-27
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-47
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.**

---

#2. In ** 2 Macc 15:37-38,** there is sorta a wierd “apology” from the author.-
…, I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I can do.

 

[mozart-250]

Why would you be convinced that Jesus used the 66 book Bible? He certainly didn’t quote from all of them.

I would think thaqt there has to be a commonly accepted OT canon of Scripture at the time and culture of Christ and that an objective historian should be able to tell me what it was. Since Christ did not complain about His canon being long or short, then that would at least to me should be the governing metric here(somebody would have to present a pretty convincing case as to why I should use an OT canon other than the one that Jesus used).

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would think thaqt there has to be a commonly accepted OT canon of Scripture at the time and culture of Christ and that an objective historian should be able to tell me what it was. Since Christ did not complain about His canon being long or short, then that would at least to me should be the governing metric here(somebody would have to present a pretty convincing case as to why I should use an OT canon other than the one that Jesus used).

Again, I ask why you presume Jesus used a 39 book OT canon. If you only go by books He quoted, your canon even shrinks to a lot less than 39!

And no, there was not a closed OT canon at the time of Christ. Why would there be? Many of the OT books were reworked and written several times over several decades or centuries. Why would the books written just before Christ’s birth be any different? The councils at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 300s early 400s reveal what Christians accepted since the time of Christ…namely the 46 book OT canon.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have 2 problems with the book of Maccabees 1 and 2.

#1. In 1 Macc 9:27, it states-
There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.

It is clear God was not talking to Israel through the prophets at that time. And like was mentioned earlier in this thread, Jesus stressed the important sciptures that spoke of him-
**Luke 24:25-27
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-47
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.**

---

#2. In ** 2 Macc 15:37-38,** there is sorta a wierd “apology” from the author.-
…, I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I can do.

What is suggested to you by Luke’s use of the phrase “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”?

 

[mozart-250]

Again, I ask why you presume Jesus used a 39 book OT canon. If you only go by books He quoted, your canon even shrinks to a lot less than 39!

I am obviously not expressing myself well.

Jesus used a “Bible” just like everyone else of that time period. Jesus did not complain about His “Bible” being long or short books. What did the “Bible” that Jesus use have?

Just because there was not a closed OT canon at the time of Christ does not mean that there was a commonly accepted “Bible” at the time of Christ. Just because Jesus did not quote from a book does not mean that book was not in the “Bible” that Jesus had. Just because Jesus quoted from a source does not mean that source was in the “Bible” that Jesus had.

This is a simple question that it seems to me that somebody without an agenda should be able to answer. But maybe I am expecting too much.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Jesus used a “Bible” just like everyone else of that time period. Jesus did not complain about His “Bible” being long or short books. What did the “Bible” that Jesus use have?

Just because there was not a closed OT canon at the time of Christ does not mean that there was a commonly accepted “Bible” at the time of Christ.

Perhaps it is I who am confused, but if the canon may not have been closed at the time of Christ, then why must we adhere to whatever “Bible” was accepted then? Especially with the evidence of an un-closed canon. And what of the New Testament which also came later?

I don’t see an agenda in quoting early Christian use of “Apocryphal” books or the texts of Church councils.

If you feel like we’re going in circles like I do, feel free to move on to other threads…

 

[Publisher]

I regard them as “scripture”…I also regard the Gospel of Thomas and some of the NT “apocrypha” as “scripture”. Early Christians of various persuasions used them as “scripture”.

The canon is not a “closed” document, but a “testimony” of others dealings with the Eternal. "All scripture is profitable for study.’

One of my favorite recent editions of the NT is the “PreNicene New Testament”. I use the Oxford Study Bible with the Deuterocanical Books for my personal study Bible.

I particularly enjoy Wisdom.

 

[mercygate]

I regard them as “scripture”…I also regard the Gospel of Thomas and some of the NT “apocrypha” as “scripture”. Early Christians of various persuasions used them as “scripture”.

The canon is not a “closed” document, but a “testimony” of others dealings with the Eternal. "All scripture is profitable for study.’

One of my favorite recent editions of the NT is the “PreNicene New Testament”. I use the Oxford Study Bible with the Deuterocanical Books for my personal study Bible.

I particularly enjoy Wisdom.

WOW! Is this the position of the Society of Friends as a whole, or is it a personal view?

 

[Publisher]

WOW! Is this the position of the Society of Friends as a whole, or is it a personal view?

The Society of Friends does not believe in a “closed canon” of scripture…God has never ceased speaking to humanity…Friends believe in “that of God” in each of us, and we each have access to the Eternal. Friend’s worship is “structured” for each of those in attendence to “minister” to the Meeting as the Light instructs them. We have no “ordained clergy” as all have unfettered access to the Light Within. Some of the “pastoral meetings” have “recorded ministers” and are very much like many Protestant churches…“unprogrammed Meetings” are conducted in the “traditional” Quaker manner.

Most Friend’s from 'unprogrammed meetings" would find nothing wrong with my view, and may even include the Koran, Upanishads, Vedas and Gita as “scripture” as they too flow from the “Light Within”.

 

[mercygate]

The Society of Friends does not believe in a “closed canon” of scripture…God has never ceased speaking to humanity…Friends believe in “that of God” in each of us, and we each have access to the Eternal. Friend’s worship is “structured” for each of those in attendence to “minister” to the Meeting as the Light instructs them. We have no “ordained clergy” as all have unfettered access to the Light Within. Some of the “pastoral meetings” have “recorded ministers” and are very much like many Protestant churches…“unprogrammed Meetings” are conducted in the “traditional” Quaker manner.

Most Friend’s from 'unprogrammed meetings" would find nothing wrong with my view, and may even include the Koran, Upanishads, Vedas and Gita as “scripture” as they too flow from the “Light Within”.

I always learn so much from you.

Is there a common canon among Friends. Do ALL Friends recognize the Koran, etc as part of the “unclosed canon?” Or is it really just a non-canon with anyone by his own internal light having the ability to decide for himself what belongs in his own personal “canon?”

 

[BrianH]

Not to interupt, but the unprogrammed meetings in the midwest are a little more conservative. Go ahead, just an FYI

 

[Publisher]

I always learn so much from you.

Is there a common canon among Friends. Do ALL Friends recognize the Koran, etc as part of the “unclosed canon?” Or is it really just a non-canon with anyone by his own internal light having the ability to decide for himself what belongs in his own personal “canon?”

Historically Friends have used the standard Bible depending on which time in history they lived. In 17th century England I believe they used the KJV, which included the “apocrypha” and usually had the Book of Common Prayer bound with the scriptures. When a person became “convinced”, they usually ripped out the BoCP from their Bibles. Those Friends who “define” themselves a Christian use the scriptures most Protestants use, many use the Oxford Study Bible RSV. Some of the more “mystical” Friends do use other volumes of scripture to seek to better understand how the Light of God has been expressed in other cultures and times, not just our own Western Christian civilization.

God is present in all people and speaks to all as each of us have a measure of the Light Within, out of this Divine Center we are called to love and peace and Oneness with the God who gave us life.

Each of us is responsible on how we would respond to the Light Within, to “that of God”…Friends worship seeks to join with others in that Divine Center.

Most Friends see God as revealed most fully in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we each are called to share in his “incarnation” in this world.

 

[mercygate]

I am obviously not expressing myself well.

Jesus used a “Bible” just like everyone else of that time period. Jesus did not complain about His “Bible” being long or short books. What did the “Bible” that Jesus use have?

Just because there was not a closed OT canon at the time of Christ does not mean that there was a commonly accepted “Bible” at the time of Christ. Just because Jesus did not quote from a book does not mean that book was not in the “Bible” that Jesus had. Just because Jesus quoted from a source does not mean that source was in the “Bible” that Jesus had.

This is a simple question that it seems to me that somebody without an agenda should be able to answer. But maybe I am expecting too much.

Right. It is no secret that the Septuagint was the Bible in widest use at the time of Christ. It included the Deuterocanonical Books, of course.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I regard them as “scripture”…I also regard the Gospel of Thomas and some of the NT “apocrypha” as “scripture”. Early Christians of various persuasions used them as “scripture”.

The canon is not a “closed” document, but a “testimony” of others dealings with the Eternal. "All scripture is profitable for study.’

One of my favorite recent editions of the NT is the “PreNicene New Testament”. I use the Oxford Study Bible with the Deuterocanical Books for my personal study Bible.

I particularly enjoy Wisdom.

Very interesting posts Publisher. What are some of the NT apocrypha you mention?
Also you mentioned that we are called to share in Christ’s incarnation. Do Friends also teach that we are called to share in his suffering?